Menu

Monthly Archives: November 2017

A controversial problem-gambling charity now employs a father and son, I can reveal. Previously, the son, who’s also a freelance photographer, was appointed by the charity to snap its recent symposium. Although apparently unpaid that day, the charity is listed as a “previous client” on his photographer website. The charity wouldn’t disclose how many applications it received for the son’s new paid role.

The Young Gamblers Education Trust (trading name: YGAM) is a national charity whose mission is “to inform, educate and safeguard young people against problematic gambling and social gaming” (registered charity number: 1162425). It was founded by chief executive Lee Willows. Registered as a charity in June 2015, YGAM has been criticised for its closeness to the gambling industry (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/19/britains-newest-gambling-addiction-charity-funded-industrys-gala-bet365-paddy-power). The trustees at the date of the newspaper report (August 2016) included people working for gambling and gambling-related companies. Further, the charity accepted and continues to accept funding from the industry; and works with various “corporate partners”. These include gambling giants Ladbrokes Coral, Paddy Power Betfair and Bet365, among others.

In response to the bad publicity around the direct involvement of gambling executives in its management and administration, YGAM has refreshed its board of trustees, including appointing a new chair, Rachel Jones, with effect from 1 November 2017. None of the now seven trustees, all volunteers, discloses any involvement with the gambling industry: the board is “fully independent,” says the website.

Fine, but YGAM now employs a father and son, Adrian Sladdin and Charles Sladdin. Adrian, director of education, is self-evidently a senior member of staff (screen shot in Figure 1). Son Charles is data & impact officer (screen shot in Figure 2). The particulars for Charles’ role reveal it reports to his father: data-and-impact-officer. Cosy.

What’s more, before recruiting Charles in that role, YGAM appointed him to photograph its symposium, which took place on 7 September 2017 at City, University of London. Charles is a freelance photographer, too (screen shot in Figure 4). His website in that role bears the somewhat immodest slogan: “Smart photographer. Even smarter photographs.”

Figure 3. Job ad for YGAM data & impact officer at 1 November 2017

“Lee, London” may be right: “Charles is a young man with a huge talent and an absolute eye for detail when it comes to photography… Get in touch with him today, you will not be disappointed.” Nevertheless selection by Lee’s YGAM of Charles as “principle (sic) official photographer” for its event raises questions about nepotism.

Mr Willows told me in an email Charles was unpaid as snapper that day. Yet YGAM is listed as a “previous client” on his photographer website.

Adrian Sladdin wasn’t involved in the recruitment process for the data & impact officer, at least according to Mr Willows. Fine, but the chief executive himself, of course, issued a glowing testimonial for Charles after he photographed YGAM‘ssymposium. His testimonial indicates it’s reasonable to suggesthewasbiased in Charles‘ favour when later recruiting him for the paid position – even before we consider Charles is the son of Mr Willows‘ colleague, Adrian.

Mr Willows disagreed in an email: “I help all our volunteers in different ways and there is no connection to this gesture of thanks and his appointment in YGAM.”

When I raised the fact the particulars for Charles’ role show he reports to his father, the chief executive replied YGAM had consequentlychanged its organisational structure. He provided a revised chart depicting the neworganisational structure, also now available on the website.

YGAM wouldn’t tell me how many applications it receivedfor the data & impact officer post. Mr Willows only said in an email: “We have lots of interest for all positions in YGAM and all positions are advertised on our website; on average we have 14 applications for everybody (sic)role.”

YGAM has clearly improved its governance, or at least created that impression, with the new board, including a new chair. The charity is now less close to the gambling industry – in terms of the trustees anyway. This should surely improve YGAM’s credibility. It still receives funding from gambling firms, though. Indeed, the charity aims to sign up five new “corporate partners” in the current financial year 2017-18, according to the latest trustees’ annual report, for 2016-17. The recent decision revealed here to employ the son of a senior member of staff is concerning. What’s more, the son in his paid role reported to his father until a reorganisation. Nepotism, actual, potential or perceived, only undermines the charity’s credibility.

Holders of parliamentary passes as MPs’ staff are required to declareonly paid roles on the register of MPs’ staff. Yet an influentialBrexit campaigner working for a Conservative MP erroneously declared an apparently unpaid role at the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), the campaign group.

The declaration failed to state the role is unpaid. It isn’t self-evident from the job title – research fellow –it’s unpaid, either.

Dr Lee Rotherham declares two roles, both at thinktanks, on the latest register of MPs’ staff (at 2 November 2017). He’s executive director at Veterans for Britain and director at The Red Cell. His MP sponsor is John Hayes, Conservative, who’s Minister of State at the Department for Transport.

Dr Rotherham was director of special projects at Vote Leave, the official Brexit campaign in the 2016 EU referendum. Previously he’d been an adviser to Business for Britain, the eurosceptic campaign group established in 2013 by Matthew Elliott, who later became Vote Leave chief executive.

On 20 November 2017, the Electoral Commission announced it’s opened an investigation to establish whether Vote Leave Limited, Mr Darren Grimes and/or Veterans for Britain breached campaign finance rules in relation to spending at the 2016 EU referendum. The commission says it has “reasonable grounds to suspect an offence may have been committed”. In May 2016, Vote Leave donated £100k to Veterans for Britain, according to the Electoral Commission online database.

Because of the new investigation, it’s appropriate to scrutinise the links between Vote Leave and Veterans for Britain. Dr Rotherham, of course,was director of special projects at Vote Leave; and is currentlyexecutive director at Veterans for Britain.

In February 2017, Dr Rotherham told me in an email his role as a research fellow at the TPA is an unpaid honorary one. (He still appears on the TPA website as a research fellow at date of publication (screen shot in Figure 1). As you can see, there continues to be no indication his is an unpaid role.) When I asked why in the first place he’d declared the post given it was apparently unpaid, the self-styled “veteran eurosceptic” wrote in March 2017: “Excessive diligence!”

Neverthelessholders of parliamentary passes as MPs’ staff are required to declareonly paid roles on the register of MPs’ staff. Thus anyone would reasonably inferDr Rotherham had been paid by the TPA when he declared his research fellow role there. Dr Brexit says he wasn’t, which means his declaration was inaccurate.

Recently, I had reason to make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the BBC. It refused my request for information, so my experience of the BBC Information Rights team wasn’t a happy one.

Here I won’t say anything more other than all emails in the series I received from the BBC on this matter failed to disclose names. Everyone hid behind the sign-off BBC Information Rights. There’s an obvious irony in the BBC’s non-disclosure given the subject matter.

What’s worse, the BBC was unaccountable on its lack of transparency. I asked in an email why staff names are withheld in this way. But answer there came none (at date of publication).

The BBC says on its website it “welcomes feedback from the public on all aspects of our handling of Freedom of Information Act matters. Let us know your views.” Well, I did – and the broadcaster simply ignored my email with the question about its non-disclosure.

On FOI, of all things, it’s difficult not to conclude the BBC is an opaque and unaccountable organisation.

On 30 October 2017, Charles Moore wrote about “wonderful” charity Style for Soldiers in his notebook column in The Daily Telegraph newspaper:Daily Telegraph 30 Oct 2017. But he failed to disclose something relevant – colleague Lisa Armstrong, Telegraph fashion director, is a trustee of the charitythat provides bespoke clothes for wounded soldiers.

The “Fashion Journalist of the Year” hasn’t just become a trustee. Ms Armstrong was a founding director – that is, trustee – when the charitable company was incorporated on 13 November 2012, according to Companies House records (registered company number: 08291711). The Charity Commission public register of charities confirms heras a trustee (registered charity number: 1161119).

It may be “wonderful” as former Telegraph editorMr Moore says, but Style for Soldiers seems to be confused about the difference between patron and trustee. Ms Armstrong is identified as a patron on the charitywebsite (screen shot in Figure 1). Shirtmaker Emma Willis set up Style for Soldiers.

This isn’t the first time the military charityhas appeared in The Telegraph, however. On 17 December 2016, for example, Ms Armstrong wrote a gushing profile of founder and trustee Ms Willis in The Daily Telegraph, nominating her as woman of the year for her achievements with Style for Soldiers. Here’s the online version: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/brands/meet-emma-willis-tailor-helping-injured-soldiers-regain-confidence/. Hardly an unbiased nomination. Yet the fashion director didn’t declareher own role at the charity, so readers had no idea of the ridiculousness of the situation.